Top!

THAT'S the stuff.

Another good idea for this forum would be a thread where we post our measurements, so we can give each other good tips secretly "BTS"...

Maybe?

Last edited by Hard Bop Hank (2009-10-29 14:34:39)

It makes sense.

Last edited by The_Shooman (2009-10-30 04:05:41)

Last edited by The_Shooman (2009-10-30 04:43:40)

While shoes could be made with horsehide from the front quarters of the horse it would be a slipper-weight material and wouldn't be Cordovan: a designation which refers to the tannage as much as the location on the beast from whence the leather itself comes. For shoemaking purposes only the leather from the shell can take the 'fattening' needed to call it true Cordovan.

Are you sure you're not referring to cordovan-coloured calf Russell?

I don't necessarily believe that shell is a better material for all shoes in all instances. Because of its unique qualities and appearance it will only work in certain styles, but for some it's a must. A plain toe blucher in calf just looks insubstantial, dull, weedy and one-dimensional compared to its counterpart in shell cordovan. Balancing that I'm not convinced that true moccasins can be fashioned effectively from shell. Following on from this I'm interested in hearing from any members who have first hand experience of the Mark McNairy cordovan weejun.

Last edited by Natural Sole Brother (2009-10-30 04:56:07)

^ They're not in the current range online this year. These are new though:

http://www.fairmountshoes.com/co_produits.php?pdt=1&rfp=1FA-20-61-43&idl=102

Franco-Ivo!

A number of tanneries throughout Europe still produce horsehide for small leather goods and for jackets (the other parts of a horse hide are typically much thinner than the equivalent parts of a cow's hide). All horsehide is not cordovan. As I state above the term refers to the very specific tannage of a specific part of the hide. I suspect your French loafers are playing fast and loose with the terminology.